Studia Logica 73 (2):209 - 218 (2003)
|Abstract||David Makinson has argued that the compelling character of counterexamples to the Recovery Condition on contraction is due to an appeal to justificational structure. In “naked theories” where such structure is ignored or is not present, Recovery does apply. This note attempts to show that Makinson is mistaken on both counts. Recovery fails when no appeal is made to justificational structure.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
C. Murphy & P. Gardoni (2008). Recovery From Natural and Man-Made Disasters As Capabilities Restoration and Enhancement. International Journal of Sustainable Development and Planning 3 (4):1-17.
Joseph J. Fins, Nicholas D. Schiff & Kathleen M. Foley (2007). Late Recovery From the Minimally Conscious State: Ethical and Policy Implications. Neurology 68 (4):304-307.
Neil Tennant (1994). Changing the Theory of Theory Change: Towards a Computational Approach. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 45 (3):865-897.
Gary Malinas & John Bigelow (2001). Simpson's Paradox. The Monist 84 (2):265-283.
Jun Li (1998). A Note on Partial Meet Package Contraction. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 7 (2):139-142.
Sven Ove Hansson (1999). Recovery and Epistemic Residue. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 8 (4):421-428.
Eduardo L. Fermé (1998). On the Logic of Theory Change: Contraction Without Recovery. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 7 (2):127-137.
Samir Chopra, Aditya Ghose, Thomas Meyer & Ka-Shu Wong (2008). Iterated Belief Change and the Recovery Axiom. Journal of Philosophical Logic 37 (5).
Sven Ove Hansson (1991). Belief Contraction Without Recovery. Studia Logica 50 (2):251 - 260.
StephenMurray Glaister (2000). Recovery Recovered. Journal of Philosophical Logic 29 (2):171-206.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads3 ( #202,008 of 549,118 )
Recent downloads (6 months)0
How can I increase my downloads?